Could you elaborate on what you mean by "subordination"? In Orthodox theology, the Son and the Spirit have the Father's will and the Father's action.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "subordination"? In Orthodox theology, the Son and the Spirit have the Father's will and the Father's action.My apologies if my contributions to this thread are not pertinent to what you wish to discuss. I thought they were related. As a seeker of truth, I am curious as to whether you are avoiding the subordination issue, or whether you don't hold the earliest fathers' teaching in high regard. All the best to you.
"Generation" and "spiritation" are just different terms for engendering, the former used for the Son, the latter for the Spirit. That was the case in the Middle Ages and applies to this day in the Catholic Catechism. Similar to the distinction between "begotten" and "proceeds".Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (publ. 1949) has made the rounds as a textbook in US (and perhaps Canadian) Christian and theological schools of (Protestant) Reformed (and some baptistic) persuasions. On pp. 96-97, it reads in part:
"... And the long drawn dispute about the question, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or also from the Son, was finally settled by the Synod of Toledo in 589 by adding the word "Filioque" to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed: 'Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit' ('We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son'). This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however: (1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son. (2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power. (3) In logical order generation precedes spiration. It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son. In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence [of the Son on p. 93, Berkhof distinguishes personal subsistence from divine essence--!?] of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change."
Orthodox (capital "O") folk are asked not to dispute with me Berkhof's claim to the issue being "finally settled," etc. (e.g., finally settled according to whom?) and as of this writing I cannot otherwise independently confirm the historical claims. Nor do I well understand how on the one hand (1) "in logical order generation precedes spiration" and "generation is the work of the Father only" while on the other hand also (2) "in spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence." The paragraph is western rather than eastern wrt the Filioque, yet the distinction between "generation" and "spiration" (= procession) has me wondering if it well represents the history of western (i.e., Roman Catholic) thought; others are more competent to address that question than I. And does Berkhof's paragraph comport with Philip_B's wine bottle and cup analogy (post # 20)?
A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).
My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?
The Father always endowed the Son and Holy Spirit with existence, there was never a time when he wasn't endowing them with existence, ergo he didn't exist prior to them. The Father eternally begot the Son.It would be more helpful to point Biblical evidence that might refer to such a concept of the Father alone as being the "source of the entire Trinity". This concept seems to imply that God, being the "source" would mean that the Father existed before the Son and the Holy Spirit, I don't find that to be shown in scripture.
The Christian does not hold the words of any Pope or the Roman Catholic church to any high level of authenticity or authority. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in God, not the Pope and not Rome. Nor is Rome the source of Theology.
Christ says the Spirit proceeds (in Greeks it means "come out of") from the Father in John 15:26. In John 14:26, Christ describes the Father as the sole origin for the sending of the Holy Spirit, although the sending is done in Christ's name (as in, through him). In John 14:16, Christ describes the Spirit as ultimately being given by the Father.
These debates serve to remind me why Christianity has so many denominations
all reading the same Book.
So which denomination is the right denomination?????
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there
Someone pleeeease explain which one is the right one?
The Catholic denomination started out as the catholic denomination.
Small case "c" in catholic meant "universal".
Curious what?
So which one is the right, correct, true, denomination?
Some, like the J.W's, call their denomination the "TRUTH".
Members say "we are in the Truth".
A bold claim?????
Inquiring minds don'cha'know?
Westboro Baptists preach hate in the name of "god".
Some Pentacostals play with rattlesnakes to demonstrate faith.
Some get bitten and refuse medical intervention as a demonstration
of faith.
Some die as a result of snake bites and members say "god" called
the dead guy to heaven.
Really?
Faith or stupidity?
J.W.'s DIE, let their children DIE, rather than accept a blood transfusion or
organ transplant.
I think the Governing Body of J.W.'s has made a transfusion or transplant
a "matter of conscious" now.
What about those that died in previous decades?????
Inquiring mind don'cha'know?
Bible interpretation and religious dogma.
Wow.
All this ^^^ is why I refuse to join a church or claim a denomination.
I am a Christian.
I have my own beliefs and don't want to join a church as such.
I pray daily and am grateful for my life.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "subordination"? In Orthodox theology, the Son and the Spirit have the Father's will and the Father's action.
The Father always endowed the Son and Holy Spirit with existence, there was never a time when he wasn't endowing them with existence, ergo he didn't exist prior to them.
The early Fathers did not teach that the Spirit or the Son had a "lesser form of divinity" than the Father, unless you're talking about the Arians, whom I would not consider Fathers, neither would the Church.Perhaps this will answer both quotes at once...
Oxford Dictionary: Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries...” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319)
SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it [modern theology] does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, p. 321)
"With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (R.P.C. Hanson 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.xix.)
Essentially, the earliest fathers taught that the Father was "alone," but had His Word and Wisdom (Son and Spirit) within Him. At some point in eternity past (which is the real meaning of eternally begotten - because no time can be ascribed), He begat His Word and Wisdom outward from within. Because like begets like, the Son and Spirit can be worshiped as God, since they are of His very essence. This is the essence of subordination. I have countless quotes from the first 300 years regarding this, and they virtually in agreement in what I have just described.
None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.A few quotes to substantiate the above...
Ireneaus: "And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature;”
Tertullian: God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself." "...but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son...There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son..."
Novatian: "...because He [Son] is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father..."
Novatian: "And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both—He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods."
Tatian: "For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible...the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father."
Theophilus: John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills..."
A few quotes to substantiate the above...
Ireneaus: "And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature;”
Tertullian: God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself." "...but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son...There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son..."
Novatian: "...because He [Son] is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father..."
Novatian: "And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both—He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods."
Tatian: "For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible...the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father."
Theophilus: John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills..."
An Orthodox reading of Aquinas isn't possible, it's not just doctrinal difficulties, it's that mindset isn't Patristic, it's Scholastic. He is, however, a fascinating theologian, but I read him for the same reasons I read Muslim theologians or atheistic philosophers. His system of thought was the chief impetus behind The Divine Comedy.
None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.
The early Fathers did not teach that the Spirit or the Son had a "lesser form of divinity" than the Father, unless you're talking about the Arians, whom I would not consider Fathers, neither would the Church.
I concur with Constantine over the credibility we should pay to the claims of each of these guys.
Oddly enough, the only Church Father here (Ireneaus) is the only one who isn't implying that God is bound by time as the others seem to do.
To apply the laws of time to God, or even to a single person of the trinity (so still God) means to ignore or overlook one of the most important attributes of God: transcendence.
Just because the Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology interprets their position of subordination as being a "lesser form of Divinity" doesn't make it so. I used the quotes from several books to show that the earliest writers are ignored in favor of a later orthodoxy. I am amazed at how quickly researchers will adopt the teachings put forth many hundreds of years later, but dismiss the earliest generations that are closer to the Apostle's teachings. The Son was born "very God of very God," and was worshiped by all these writers as such. I hold nothing in respect to Arius' teachings, so please don't equate this early teaching with his. He taught the Son was made of nothing, and that there was a time He did not exist. These writers are clear that He did exist within the Father, and later was born of the Father in eternity past, which makes Him eternal.
The thing is, you are presuming that just because a writer is early, he's Orthodox. That's far from the case, there were a ton of heresies very early. The problem is most of your quotes are from people who were anathematized as opposed to contemporaries of theirs who did not assertion any such theology of the Father being prior to the Son in existence. "Prior" is kind of an inherently temporal term.Just because the Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology interprets their position of subordination as being a "lesser form of Divinity" doesn't make it so. I used the quotes from several books to show that the earliest writers are ignored in favor of a later orthodoxy. I am amazed at how quickly researchers will adopt the teachings put forth many hundreds of years later, but dismiss the earliest generations that are closer to the Apostle's teachings. The Son was born "very God of very God," and was worshiped by all these writers as such. I hold nothing in respect to Arius' teachings, so please don't equate this early teaching with his. He taught the Son was made of nothing, and that there was a time He did not exist. These writers are clear that He did exist within the Father, and later was born of the Father in eternity past, which makes Him eternal.
None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.
The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.Most Orthodox scholars recognize Tertullian, and Origen as important church fathers, worthy of study, who simply were not glorified as saints because they fell into heresy.
The thing is, you are presuming that just because a writer is early, he's Orthodox.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?